On September 25, 1973, Chrysler Corporation introduced a new generation of full-size car, sold by Dodge as the Monaco. Also referred to as the C-body, the exterior was new as were many structural components. This new Monaco was the Dodge successor to the “fuselage” cars that were introduced in 1969.
In early October 1973 the first oil crisis hit. This crisis affected not only the United States but also Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Japan, and later South Africa. By some reports the global price of oil quadrupled between October 1973 and April 1974.
The new Monaco weighed 300 to 400 pounds more than the outgoing model, despite a half-inch reduction in wheelbase, and now had a larger 360 cubic inch (5.9 liter) V8 as standard equipment. This, combined with the timing of their introduction, helped make these new Monacos a challenging sell.
The Monaco was introduced in 1965 as a specialty vehicle to compete with the Pontiac Grand Prix. Dodge Chief Engineer Burton Bouwkamp has stated the original intention was for the Monaco to not wear a Dodge label. Bouwkamps’s concern was the Dodge brand was not upmarket enough to be a true competitor to Pontiac or the Grand Prix due in part to the Dodge name also being used on pickups. Lynn Townsend vetoed Bouwkamp and the Dodge name was ultimately applied to the Monaco.
Ample distinction was made between the Monaco and the lesser, highly related full-size Polara and Custom 880 models. Monaco interiors had better padded seats, a console, and other accoutrements with the outside having Monaco specific trim and tail lights. All Monacos were two-door hardtops and, unlike the Polara and Custom 880, there was no choice of engine as all Monacos had a 383 nestled under the hood. The premium for the Monaco was around $500 more than a base Polara two-door hardtop.
Dodge would sell 13,200 Monacos for 1965.
As was standard practice among the Big Three for years, 1966 saw Chrysler’s first round of monkeying with their initial Monaco formula. This year saw the discontinuation of the Custom 880 series and the implementation of the Monaco nameplate being used on the same variety of body styles used by Polara, minus convertibles. Except for the Monaco 500 that was intended to replace the Monaco in status, the Monaco was now simply better trim for a Polara.
1968 Polara line shown
If this usage of the Polara and Monaco names isn’t confusing already, keep in mind it doesn’t get any better. The Monaco 500 disappeared for 1968 to coincide with the introduction of the Polara 500. The Polara 500 disappeared in favor of a Polara Custom by 1972. There was also a Polara Special for at least 1971, intended to denote cars built specifically for police and taxi duty with all such sedans powered by the 225 slant six.
All these spastic nomenclature tweaks brings us to 1974 when the final generation of rear-drive C-body was introduced. In an attempt optimists could interpret as intended to simplify things, the Polara name was dropped entirely. This new car was available as base Monaco, mid-level Monaco Custom, and top-tier Monaco Brougham.
From an episode of Kojak; www.imcdb.org
This change also reflected the never ending name debasement practiced by Detroit as the Monaco sank from halo car to taxi fodder in ten model years.
www.imcdb.org
Much has been opined here over the years about the majority of these cars going to police and taxi fleets. No doubt Chrysler heavily depended upon fleet sales during the 1970s but of the 78,000 Monacos built for 1974 only 4,874 were built specifically for police and taxi duty. This equates to being only 6% of production.
To be fair, any car used as a taxi or by the police is in a high visibility use and is constantly moving which would help skew perception.
However given the absolute drop in sales of the C-body after 1973, and figuring there is always a fairly steady demand for police vehicles, that percentage no doubt climbed during the last three years of the big Monaco.
If one needed a sign the days of the 121 inch and greater wheelbase full-size car were waning, this was it.
Finding any history about the development of this generation of Dodge, or even this generation of C-body, has been elusive enough to be confused with being nonexistent. All that is readily found are a few minor details such the availability of a factory anti-theft system.
Pictured is a 1975 Royal Monaco (a designation new that year, meaning Chrysler had monkeyed with the naming system yet again) which is identical to the 1974 from this angle. It should also be noted there was a marked difference between the roofs of four-door sedans and four-door hardtops such as the one seen here. The biggest visual indicator, besides roof pillars, is the shape of the back glass on the hardtop cars.
Here’s a 1971 Buick, the car that has been credited as being Dodge’s inspiration for the 1974 Monaco. There are certainly similarities between this Buick and the 1974 to 1977 C-body Dodges although some sources have described the styling of the Monacos as being derivative.
Taking this thought a step further reveals several visual similarities among all the full-size cars offered by each of the Big Three at this time, such as the kick-up on the rear doors at the C-pillar. Whether one views this Dodge as being cribbed or derivative, they aren’t wrong. It always feels like a few degrees is all that separates those two words.
But to play Devil’s Advocate, think of mass market cars from the 1920s and beyond. They certainly had derivative (and cribbed) styling in many cases. Derivative styling in auto design is an old practice and continues today, does it not?
As the full-size market in the United States was predominantly the domain of GM and Ford, with Dodge being little more than an interloper, perhaps Dodge (and Chrysler) was simply listening to that old adage of when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
While appearances are subjective, our featured Dodge still has its own unique merits. It generally escapes the fluffy look found in the various GM B-bodies of this period. Long ago this author stated the 1973 Impala was a car trying its best to have a pot-belly and a receding jaw line. Did it get any better for 1974, 1975, 0r 1976? No.
Despite prior defenses of the bodaciousness of the Ford over the competition, that story quickly changed. The 1974 to 1977 Monaco does make the contemporary Ford Galaxie / LTD appear rather slab-sided and clunky in comparison.
Perhaps it isn’t fair to compare a Dodge to a Ford or Chevrolet, which were the lowest priced cars from their respective manufacturers. However, Dodge had injected itself into the low-priced realm over time and there was less than a $50 difference in the base price between a Royal Monaco and a Plymouth Gran Fury in 1977. That’s hardly enough to break the Dodge into a different price strata.
For model year 1975 Dodge made a few tweaks that would hang around until final year 1977. The most obvious tweak was the Royal Monaco receiving a unique nose, the same nose that graces our featured car. This was the standard Monaco nose for 1976 and it was back to being on the Royal Monaco only for 1977.
This nose has been compared to that of the 1973 Mercury Marquis. The similarities are there but there are also distinct differences as the winged messenger has a much more obnoxious front bumper and pointier fender tips than does John and Horace’s namesake. Plus the Mercury has been highly endowed with plastic decor on the headlight covers.
So while perhaps not everyone agrees with these assessments, there is irrefutable evidence Dodge didn’t fall victim to every classic 1970s design gimmick. If that sounds bizarre, here’s proof…
Ford saw fit to add all manner of visual distractions to their LTD, most notably fender skirts. Ford had a fender skirt fixation on more than just the LTD as it also extended to the mid-size Torino.
And this presentation of steel semicircle pseudo-luxury didn’t stop at Dearborn. The frivolity of fender foofaraw traveled around the 1970s Detroit Metro area like a bad rash as it also infected Chevrolet (and Pontiac and Oldsmobile and Buick and Cadillac and Mercury and Lincoln and even the Chrysler brand). Were Dodge and Plymouth the only two American cars to escape such frippery in the 1970s? Well, there was AMC and Checker.
These two Chevrolets are from 1976; the Ford is from 1975 with such trendy yet tasteless adornment continuing until 1978.
Dodge never fell for this gimmick….at least in the 1970s, anyway.
The Monaco thankfully never went the festooned fender route, making for a much more tasteful and elegant find over forty years later. In comparison to the pre-downsized competition, this Dodge looks downright dignified.
Despite these defenses about Mopar goodness, by 1977 the Monaco was not looking as fresh as it once had. While the Dodge in this sales video is a highly trimmed example, the contrast between it and the new 1977 Chevrolet Caprice also seen in the video is considerable. It’s a great demonstration of two methods to achieve the same purpose.
Credit needs to be given to Dodge for effectively and convincingly making a case for the Royal Monaco over the Caprice. Given the mild uptick in sales for 1977, one can’t help but wonder if a few big car diehards moved over to Dodge from elsewhere.
One element about the Monaco was the spectrum of ways these came equipped. Many were undoubtedly rather spartan but our featured example isn’t. The drivers seat is a rather inviting place, a place where likely several of us would like to spend some time.
As we all know, the Chrysler Corporation in 1977 was not an overly fun place. Financial woes were wreaking havoc and the need to downsize was staring them in the face. Having no real resources to effectively downsize, Chrysler did about the best thing they could. They began transitioning out of the full-size car and promoting a mid-size using the Monaco name which began for 1977.
There are times in life one must do something unenjoyable while wearing a happy face. That’s what can be seen in this picture.
While the 1977 mid-size Monaco was nothing more than a redecorated 1971 Coronet, Dodge gave it their all in making it appear contemporary. However, this brochure cover is borderline depressing as it clearly reflects the challenges of Chrysler at that time.
Frankly, this Dodge could be a 1976 model as easily as it could be a 1977 or a 1975. Like it matters. The same sentiment applies to whether this Dodge has the standard 360 or optional 400 or 440 V8. What is known is this Dodge is in the care of a younger gentleman.
Something tells me this gentleman knows he has a very special Dodge, one that is rare simply due to natural attrition. While it may not have broken any new ground in its appearance it truly is the end of a long and distinguished line.
Found by Editor Dave Skinner, May 2019, two blocks from Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, D.C.
Related Reading:
Gone and Forgotten by PN
Royal Monaco Wagon by PN
I know they are considered rather dull by some, and maybe a wanna-be luxury car, but I’ve always liked Chrysler’s big luxo-boats of the mid-1970s.
Royal Monaco Brougham – New Yorker – Imperial.
A 1977 Chrysler New Yorker Brougham:
Somebody should bust a bottle of champagne on the bow of that old girl. “…She was makin’ for the trades on the outside, and the downhill run to Papeete “. C.S.N., “Southern Cross”.
An option laden C body of this generation absolutely is an American luxury car of the period. Which came to an end.
Agreed 100%! There was a tuxedo black New Yorker on Hemmings a few months ago that had me drooling. If I recall it was either a 76 or 77. These cars look simultaneously stylish and menacing when in black.
The styling of that New Yorker (nee Imperial) is certainly distinctive and imposing in a way that a large luxury car should be.
But to my eye, the big Dodges and Plymouths of this era were way too generic looking. If you were filming a car insurance commercial and wanted a generic car you could strip the badges off of to make into an unidentifiable large car, you’d start with a Monaco or a Gran Fury. Maybe that’s because of how common they were in police and taxi fleets. Or maybe it’s because Chrysler design was playing it too safe with their bread and butter cars — surprising given the styling risks they took with cars like the Cordoba and Magnum.
One thing I thought was interesting about the final, 1978, Chrysler-brand-only C bodies is that the four-door post sedan was killed off with the Dodges and Plymouths, all the ’78 four-doors were hardtops which were the last four-door hardtops not only from Mopar but from Detroit.
So there were no 1978 full-size Mopar sedans? I can understand no Chrysler sedans, but what did police departments do? Were there really four-door hardtop police cruisers in 1978?
I think the Plymouth/Dodge C body was gone entirely for 1978, so the B body Fury Monaco was the only sedan available. The Chrysler C body remained for 78 (its last year). The sedan version of the Chrysler was gone by 78 (and possibly for 77, but I have not looked it up and don’t remember).
Ah, that would explain it: there was no C-body Plymouth or Dodge sedan for 1978 because there wasn’t ‘any’ C-body Plymouth or Dodge for 1978 (only Chryslers) with the ‘big’ Dodge and Plymouth returning for 1979 with the R-body.
That would make the feature car the end of the line for the last, old-school, full-size Dodge. Unless I missed it, I didn’t see it explicity stated in the text, but I suppose it’s right there in the title. For those in the know, that, alone, makes it kind of special.
Yeah, it’s in the text. I just missed it.
Of course, it’s also the title of the article, too…
Do rather like those recycled 1974-75 Imperial 1976-’78 New Yorker Broughams, especially in the right elegant color combinations. Two improvements I would make to one would be to add the stainless trim below the character line from a 1974-75 New Yorker and remove that mid-body rub strip for nice clean sides. A small, rectangular limousine-style backlight would be good too..
The last quasi-Imperial, the New Yorker Brougham, is a terrific example of how the Imperial name just couldn’t catch a break. The New Yorker versions sold much better than the previous Imperials, even though they were virtually identical but technically more expensive. With the exception of four wheel disc, anti-lock brakes, the Imperials came fully loaded. It was possible to load up a New Yorker Brougham to the same level, but it would then cost more than the previous Imperial.
In effect, you could save a few bucks and get what was essentially a decontented Imperial.
That is one clean and well-loved Dodge!
Yes it is.
It would have been great to have been the one to find this Dodge. There is something about it, perhaps the color or it’s well-preserved condition, that is really appealing.
Exactly right-
The 3/4 rear view from across the street was taken when I first spotted this car, and demonstrates the prominence it holds over the adjacent cars.
BTW, Great write up Jason- The cars condition and features were compelling, but I don’t have much to say about the full size market circa 1975. You’ve taken the pics and woven a larger tapestry than I could imagine.
Thanks.
If that essay above this doesn’t reflect it, I do have a soft spot for these for whatever reason. Maybe it’s due to rooting for the underdog.
A trivia nugget….at one time a 1975 C-body Monaco had the distinction of the longest car jump in a movie or TV show. It was the desert chase from Smokey & The Bandit Two. That had no place in the article but it was too good to not mention.
I remember that scene in Smokey and the Bandit. For starters, it was somewhat odd as the vast majority of cars in that movie seemed to have been provided by Pontiac, including some goofy police cars that had the Trans Am’s hood scoop affixed.
Anyway, IIRC, that jump by the Monaco evidently didn’t go entirely as planned. Something about the car sliding across the grass and a stuntman being injured as a result.
Somewhere I read those Pontiacs LeMans were intended to be rental cars but were delivered to the rental lot in Phoenix without being a/c equipped. The cars were rejected and nobody wanted them, then along came the movie.
My dad owned a 76 RM Brougham two door in 1976. Big and thirsty, with the build quality of a Yugo. Topic for a future COAL. I agree that these cars looked very good compared to the competition, but that’s about all I would say that was good about them.
Wow – there’s a lot to think about here. First, the sales chart is really eye-popping… it’s no secret that these large Dodges were uncommon (I can’t ever remember a time when I saw a lot of them), but seeing how sales fell off a cliff in the mid-1970s really puts that into perspective.
Then there’s the video/infomerical. I love those comparisons, nitpicking at the competition, but it really seemed like Dodge was grasping at air here. Measuring the area in square footage of the rear window… that’s a metric I’ve never come across before! But in a way I can’t blame them… if you’re stuck with an old-fashioned product, you might as well roll with it and get a few sales from disaffected traditionalists.
Of course these types of comparisons weren’t unique to Dodge… below is an excerpt from a 1977 Oldsmobile brochure comparing the Delta 88 to various competitors, including the Royal Monaco. Things like the Monaco’s oh-so-dated round headlamps were amusingly called out here.
One final comment about the (amazingly preserved) featured car. The interior, while comfy looking, appears design-wise more dated than the exterior… to me it really looks like a late-60s design, and I wonder if even traditional buyers at the time saw that as a strike against the big Chryslers, especially since the GM B-body interiors were much more contemporary.
What, you don’t think the recessed hood release was a big selling point? 🙂
The dealer training video is a hoot. Love the child actors jostling each other in the narrow GM back seat…. (which really was noticeably narrower than pre-downsized GM or current Chrysler big cars)
That video did have one feature pointed out that really resonates with me – it talked about being able to see all four corners of the vehicle from the driver’s seat, particularly the rear. Hooray for somebody realizing the value of that!
As fantastic as new(er) cars are, the inability to see the corners of even the hood is a often a major annoyance. Regardless of how crappy the rest of the car may be, I enjoy any car in which the front corners can be seen.
Perhaps a QOTD – What was the last car you owned or drove in which you could see both corners of the hood from the driver’s seat?
I miss that too. I loved driving my Crown Victoria, where I could see an acre of flat hood just past the windshield. And I still haven’t entirely gotten used to the stubby, sloping hood of the Honda Odyssey that I’m now using as my daily driver. So as a result, I usually park a few feet short of where I ought to. I wonder when my Crown Vic Syndrome will finally fade away?
That video did have one feature pointed out that really resonates with me – it talked about being able to see all four corners of the vehicle from the driver’s seat, particularly the rear. Hooray for somebody realizing the value of that!
As long as you’ve got your binoculars handy! 🙂
That’s a good point.
Long ago when I had my 1975 Thunderbird, I measured the length of the hood. It was amazing to realize it was about as long as I am tall.
Ford Flex
I’m pretty sure that’s Mike Wallace narrating the Dodge promo video.
I keep expecting to see the next scene featuring a 60 Minutes-style sting operation, with Wallace busting into Thomas Murphy’s office and grilling him over the grievous sin of putting corporate profits over giving customers rear windows that roll all the way down. 😀
This Royal Monaco reminds me of the last two I recall from the era. First was Charlie and Vivian Maker’s metallic gray with blue vinyl top sedan, full-loaded. Charlie was a retired truckdriver and part-time RFD carrier, Vivian had been one of our hair-netted cafeteria ladies. Their recreation was road-trips pulling a large trailer foray to the western U.S. Charlie like to drive, making 800 miles a day, making good time. Whether they saw much was immaterial. The Royal Monaco Brougham delivered the smooth powerful, comfortable rides that generation prized. Charlie was proud Dodge man, through and through.
The second was a rusty maroon with white vinyl-topped two door RM Brougham bought for resale by a has-been used car dealer who had signed on with the Ford dealer to handle sales. This was the mid-’80s, by which time, any rusty, thirsty 70’s giant brougham was a dirt-cheap, try-‘n-give-it-away albatross. “Chief” as he was known, ended up bondo-ing up the quarters (he’d done it often over the years), drove the RM as his ‘company’ car until finally he found someone to foist it off on. He decided to ‘retire’ from car sales at that point…
… “frivolity of fender foofaraw” That’s clever, that’s very clever!
Forgot to mention that Charlie Maker’s last car was an ’80’s M-Body Dodge Diplomat. He was never as proud of it as he was the Royal Monaco, considered it a good Dodge, just not a great Dodge. Any discussion with Charlie left no doubt what make of car was the absolute best: it was Dodge!
The styling was pleasantly imposing with all the proper hallmarks: hidden headlights, fine-texture egg-crate grille, stand-up hood ornament, axle-level broad stainless bright trim, segmented taillight details, what I refer to as ‘the 1949 Frazer school of design. Only the rear fender skirts are absent, the vinyl ‘Brougham’ top makes up for that.
Love it! I think this is a rather handsome car. Kudos to the owner for keeping it in such pristine stock condition. It’s styling has certainly aged better than some of its Brougham contemporaries.
During most of my college years I drove a relatively mint-condition ’77 Chrysler Newport – the C-body divisional sibling to this Monaco. This was in the late 90s-early 2000s…and that car was a dinosaur even then. I actually prefer the styling of the Monaco over the Newport, but either one is a nice place to eat up highway miles in floating comfort. My old Newport had the Lean Burn 400-4V. While not a powerhouse, it still moved the car with enough authority to avoid embarrassment.
Contrary to the reputation of 70s Mopar products, my car was dead reliable. Presumably this beautiful Monaco was one of the ‘good ones’ as well. Even during the dark years, every once in a while they got it right!
Recall a friends parents buying a new 1966 Monaco and telling me what a luxury car it was. I wasn’t impressed, as it didn’t even have a clock.
An uncle, who was a life-long Dodge man, had a 1974 Monaco Brougham 2 dr. HT. The 2 door looked odd, quite unlike the attractive 4 door version. A huge barge, he didn’t care about the terrible mileage as he was a city dweller who drove maybe 7,500 miles a year. He always bought the biggest Dodge made and described the ‘74 as the last real Dodge he owned, as it was followed by an ‘85 Diplomat and later, an Intrepid. I still recall when I was a little kid sitting in his ‘55 Royal Lancer hardtop, where he would let me twirl the full-time power steering wheel.
I wonder if he’d consider the current Charger to be a real Dodge
Perhaps he would, but he left this world a few years prior to it’s debut.
… “frivolity of fender foofaraw” is an exquisite turn of phrase, Mr. Shafer. Well done.
Thanks. I just kind of hopped out there during an edit.
There was no Dodge 880 in 1965, the year of the first Monaco. It had been replaced by the Polara, which was built with two wheelbases: 121″ for almost everybody, and 122″ for the California Highway Patrol.
Depends upon where one looks or lives, I suspect. I just culled this from oldcarbrochures.com and it shows the Custom 880 for 1965
You are correct, sir. The Dodge Custom 880 persisted for the first year of Engel’s new C-Bodies, including the only Dodge version of the curious 6-window sedan, another example of Chrysler responding to a GM move just as GM dropped it itself. That sedan vanished when Monaco replaced the Custom 880 as Dodge’s top full line in ’66.
As for Monaco’s, my aunt drove a ’70 when I was kid, brown w/brown vinyl IIRC, and I barely remember it, as did most car buyers back then, based on your charts.
On the other hand, my grandfather’s last new car, the ’73 Monaco Brougham that replaced his ’65 New Yorker, was a car I truly loved. It was triple dark green, and the complex front end is one of my favorites from the fuselage era, and miles better than Chrysler’s or Plymouth’s efforts that year.
It’s interesting that Dodge was able to keep its styling despite the Federal bumper standards coming into place with only added bumper guards. Probably because the front standard was only 2.5mph in ’73, going to 5mph in ’74. I wonder if Chrysler got that in place by arguing they would have an all-new C-Body in ’74 and refitting for ’73 only would be an undue expense, even though had to do it for the Chrysler and Plymouth at any standard?
The only down-note on this design was resorting to a common bumper with the Polara vs the unique, full-width taillight of the ’72.
Mopar didn’t get a break…in 1962 Plymouth and Dodge introduced what became the mid-sized car as their full size, and had to live with it until 1965 when they were back to “normal” full size (the Dodge 880 was introduced to at least give Dodge a “normal” full sized car to sell, Plymouth had to make due for 3 years until 1965).
Only 9 years later…the opposite happens…they introduce the next generation of “normal” full sized car just as the gas crisis starts, so all of a sudden no one wants “normal” full sized cars…of course now the smaller cars (guess Dart and Valiant were those cars, if you exclude the Mitsubishi made subcompacts) are what is selling.
11 years after that (1985) things normalize a bit and large cars are back to selling well. Of course Chrysler has no car larger than what would have been called compact (the RWD cars that came out in 1976…or the FWD cars which were K car based that came out in 1981). The product planners must have had a fit …don’t know what will sell by the time they came out with their offering.
I like these cars, but I prefer the 1962 ones (downsized) though I’m also fond of the Dodge 880, though I realize it was only put in place to fill a hole in the lineup. I think it is probably true to this day that a lot of people prefer the larger sized vehicles (if they don’t have trouble getting fuel for them, or if the fuel isn’t terribly expensive).
It’s kind of odd that Dodge kept the 880 for 1965…you would have thought that they would have changed the name when they redid the whole line. I guess before 1960, when the Dart came out, you really didn’t have a model, just a trim level…all they had was the “standard” sized Dodge, which is what we call full sized today…so maybe they weren’t thinking about model names (until the trim lines started to become model names, such as when Coronet became mid-sized instead of being full-sized). Of course Monaco came out in 1965, and I guess Polara went from mid-sized to full sized also in 1965 (confusing Chrysler model names seem to be almost a tradition.).
I will have to add that I have seen in the flesh, many years back, A 1965 Dodge 880. Or, was it a Dodge Custom 880? Let me just say that it was many, many years ago. And it was still in great to excellent condition.
Outstanding find and photos Dave. And a great article Jason. As a child, I rode roughly 900kms in the back of a ’77 Royal Monaco sedan, while visiting a family member. I remember the back seat being very comfortably isolated, and cocoon-like. However, we did make a number of stops for gas.
I must’ve heard Gerry Rafferty’s ‘Baker Street’ 4 or 5 times on the car’s radio during that road trip in the Summer of ’78.
Credit to the owner(s) for keeping this beast in such immaculate condition so long. These were popular in wagon form, along with the Gran Fury wagon, as trailer haulers. In fact, I seem to remember seeing the Royal Monaco wagons the most, with their towing mirrors. The nose treatment is vastly better than on the concurrent Gran Fury.
Maybe Jake and Elwood bought it when they got out of the joint.
A great find and excellent writeup! I remember these as being quite rare when new(er) but by the end of their run most of the ones you saw were fairly loaded like this one was. Which was kind of a turnaround from the Fuselage years. I knew exactly one person who owned one of these, a great big funeral director who was a diehard (sorry) Dodge man.
The Dodge seemed to get the details better than the Plymouth did, at least after 74. These always looked pretty good as long as you got the hidden headlight front end and avoided the 2 door with that criminally stupid looking opera window treatment.
I am going to peg this one as a final-year 1977 from that three spoke steering wheel, which I believe was new for 77.
The Dodge did indeed get better details. One tidbit I learned was one of the roof treatments on the two-door RM was called “Diplomat”.
I remember hearing the ’77 Royal Monaco sold so poorly that production of the model actually stopped in December of ’76. There were supposedly enough in dealer inventory and Chrysler’s notorious ‘Sales Bank’ to last the remained of the model year. Can anyone verify?
Belvidere Assembly, where apart from full-size Dodges also full-size Plymouths, Chrysler Town & Country and Newport sedans were produced that year, halted production of 1977 cars by July 15, 1977.
Here is a full-size Dodge with a Date of Manfacture of 6 – 77 on its door sticker:
Bravo. Jason, you continue to help me broaden my vocabulary! And Dave, these were / are great pictures. This piece ended on the picture on which is should have – this Royal Monaco looks dignified, indeed.
I had no idea that the original, ’65 Monaco had been intended to be something of a Grand Prix-fighter. I tell you, I learn something every day here at CC, even if I don’t have the resources to comment.
Well done.
Joe, my wife recently informed me I’ve broadened our daughter’s vocabulary but that statement was accompanied by a scolding. It’s good to know I can be a positive example for somebody.
Great research as well Jason. I didn’t realize these added so much weight to the Fuselages they replaced. That’s unforgivable, independent of the Oil Crisis. I’m surprised if Chrysler didn’t try aggressive weight cutting on these like more aluminum parts as on the Feather Duster/Dart Lite. Besides unoriginal styling, I can see why the C-bodies struggled. Add in generally inferior Chrysler quality, I wouldn’t have considered these at the time.
I know they were advertised, but I don’t remember many LTDs or full-sized Chevs of the mid 70s with fender skirts. Certainly more Chevs than Fords, but mostly Mercuries.
Jason – I enjoy your writing and admire your inquisitive mind. Mopars, especially these, do not interest me at all, but . . . .
Did you see the maroon 1977 Dodge Royal Monaco Brougham coupe bid recently to $10.5K (and unsold) on BAT? Really your kind of car and it seemed very attractive for those so inclined. The car originated in Ohio and ended up with a good specialty car dealer in Portland after a trip through E-Bay. Condition was absolutely excellent.
Somebody told me about that particular Dodge but I haven’t looked into it. Hearing about it gives me hope a few more of these may start emerging from garages and other hiding places.
To say that I have mixed views about this car would be, ahem, an understatement. For reasons I never understood, my father suddenly replaced his 1969 Pontiac Parisienne (4-door hardtop) with a 1975 Dodge Royal Monaco (4-door sedan), in this exact same colour. It was relatively spartan, with the AM radio and rear window defogger being the notable options. It seemed a massive car, even then and it was the car I learned to drive on. It certainly had some good points:
– It had a wonderful paint job, and never developed any rust in our 7 years of ownership.
– It handled pretty well.
– It was certainly better looking than the equivalent GM barges of the day.
– I liked the fact that, at 5’5”, I good see relatively well over the low dash, and the four corners of the car were easily visible, given the square styling.
– Transitioning from GM products, I really liked the satisfying feel of gear shifts on the torqueflite automatic.
However, it also had a number of key deficiencies:
– The seats were exceptionally poorly constructed, with just a single layer of sinous springs that sagged badly on the driver side after just 3 years or so. Given that it only had bench seats with no possibility for different passenger versus driver-side adjustments, this meant that the passenger suffered greatly when I was driving. (Remember that I am only 5’5”).
– The engine periodically suffered from significant driveability issues, particularly in damp weather, with chronic stumbling and stalling. Was this the lean burn issues that people talk about?
The crowning issue was the car’s unfortunate demise. I had borrowed the car to transport my stuff to university in the fall of 1981 and decided to adjust the backlighting on the dashboard panel (by twisting the relevant knob on the dash). The knob at first seemed a little resistant, and then suddenly an ominous orange glow appeared behind the speedometer. Then the glow turned into visible flames. Quickly stopping at the side of the road I removed my stuff but the car then progressively became engulfed in flames, as the fire spread to the interior and then the engine compartment and soon the whole thing. It eventually exploded and spread flames across the road a distance of some 20 feet or so. Fire trucks arrived but clearly not in time. This was, needless to say, traumatic and I remain amazed at how such a small electrical issue could escalate into such a serious issue. It must have been a lot of highly combustible plastic. The few times that I have seen these cars at shows I am tempted to tell people: definitely don’t fiddle with the dashboard light adjustment!
Not surprisingly, my father’s next car was again a GM product (an 1981 Pontiac Lemans). Much smaller and hard to drive in the snow because the rear end was so light. But the fact that it had air conditioning seemed a major improvement. The paint job was terrible, peeling after about 5 years.
I’m certain that I speak for many who were struck numb by your story – Wow, just wow.
Great write up. It’s nice to see a car this old in such great shape.
After 1960 Dodge sure had problem selling it’s big cars. I wonder if the 74 ‘C’ bodies were released for MY ‘73 – Chrysler would faced less criticism for selling dinosaurs – maybe things wouldn’t of gotten as dire so quick? The constant name changing probably didn’t help matters. I’m glad you pointed out the lack of fender skirts on big Dodges & Plymouths, at least they had that going for them. I remember riding in a then newish ‘74 Fury and being mildly impressed with it’s front fender mounted directional lights.
Nicely done article on an amazing curbside find. I like the more modern stereo add on under the dash and the cell phone charger. Adaptations for the modern age.
74-78 C bodies are pretty bland looking, but I have always liked them. Make mine either a wagon or a late New Yorker sedan.
Lean-Burn be damned, that’s one of the last formidable looking American cars.
As many already know, am a lifelong Mopar guy. Started driving, aged 16, in 1970. Loved those big cars back in the day. And, still very much do. Like the featured car very, very much.To be perfectly honest, would love to buy it from the current owner should he ever want to sell it. While I certainly like the current Chrysler 300, as well as the Charger and Challenger, would rather have a nice old Dodge in outstanding condition like this to drive on special occasions.
Oh, and by the way, thanks for an excellent write-up on that really great old large Dodge.
Do you really want to buy the car
I’m about to sale the car
Jamaal, I am interested in the car if it is for sale.
Yes email me jamaaldtravers@iclould.com
I don’t know if you saw the reply but yes ,contact me on my email and I’ll send my phone number.
Jamaaldtravers@icloud.com
Wow! Not that I’ve watched the video posted up in the article, I DO WANT one of those cars. Could probably be just as happy with a top-of-the-line Plymouth or Chrysler of the same vintage. But, generally consider myself as a Dodge guy. And the featured car in blue, with whitewall tires, looks just right. It’s a shame more people didn’t see that video back in the day while car-shopping. Then there might just be a few more left on the ground.
I’ll try this entry again.
Chrysler had the great misfortune of sinking their money into new full sized status quo cars when GM was recreating full sized cars successfully and redefining what a full sized car should be in the market.
But first – that gas crisis.
Few were expecting gas prices to quadruple. Coupled with inflation, few folks wanted to ignore what was happening across our institutions. Watergate, Vietnam, Middle East War, then the Gas Crisis too? Folks were jittery. Auto sale in 1973 were HUGE.
Then – zippo – nada – full sized cars were seen as yesterday’s rides.
Chrysler put out new ginormous full sizers. They sunk their dough into an auto line that was supposed to pay their investment back in a couple of years. But that didn’t happen for them. These cars were designed for 1973’s boom market, not 1974’s bust market.
Then the GM cars came out. The 1977 GM cars redefined large cars. GM sold the future. This left Ford and Chrysler behind by years.
Ford did the smart thing. They sold yesterday’s rides as better than tomorrow’s GM rides. “The full sized car that remembers comfort, space and luxury” “What a luxury car should be!” Buyers understood what Ford was selling – your last chance to get the cars you want before the next gas crisis. No one, even Ford, was denying that they weren’t working feverishly to follow GM. Everyone knew it was the end of the road for that big old car. Ford, Mercury and Lincoln succeeded to weather both the gas scare and the new GM cars by telling buyers that they had to buy now to get the last of the big cars.
Chrysler was clueless. Their marketing was horrible. They feebly tried to find a market message for the changing world. They had nothing to sell but the Cordoba, Darts and Valiants. Chrysler flailed in the market and they tanked.
So these cars were seen as old cars from Job 1 by the buying public. Chrysler failed to tell buyers why they should buy their cars over the new smaller GM rides, or the nostalgic Ford products. Chrysler utterly failed.
Few were expecting gas prices to quadruple.
Umm; real gas prices went from $0.36 in 1972 to $0.53 in 1974. In inflation-adjusted terms, that was a whopping 24% increase.
But please don’t let the facts get in the way of your colorful narrative, once again.
The lone bright spot in the whole sorry 1974-78 C body fiasco was the 1976-78 New Yorker Brougham. If it is possible that Chrysler recovered its investment in this platform, it would have been that single model that did it.
“but of the 78,000 Monacos built for 1974 only 4,874 were built specifically for police and taxi duty”
78,324 to be exact, 58,158 of them at Belvidere and the remaining 20,166 at Newark assembly. These split up over four trim levels:
4,874 Monaco Special (DL)
20,810 Monaco (DM)
34,414 Monaco Custom (DH)
18,226 Monaco Brougham (DP)
———
78,324
Contrary to popular belief, the Monaco Special (DL) was not a police/taxi outfit, but a value-for-money trim level for the Canadian market. Which begs the question were the Dogde police cars (DK) and taxis (DT) are hidden in these numbers.
My personal theory is that they are among the numbers for the Monaco (DM). Several sources, Collectible Automobile for instance, have only 14,031 Monaco (DM). There are no conflicting numbers for the other three trim levels. Now, police cars and taxis were often based on the lowest trim level available in a specific market. For the US market this was the Monaco (DM), so 20,810 – 14,031 = 6,779 Monacos were possibly cop cars or taxis, ie. 8.6% of the total production. This compares reasonably well with 1974 full-size Plymouth, of which 8.0% was destined for the police and taxi market.
Here is my 77 Royal Monaco. Bought it in 2014. Love this car.
Picture
This is my Royal & I’m in need of a passenger quarter panel/Front fender. Seems like all part cars are crushed 😔
Please I’m asking for a strong positive opinion on who/where to go too
An old lady 👵 cut me off and boom
She had a bumper guard so she took no damage what so ever
in my country , Argentina, these majestic cars were bought exclusively by wedding’s companies who hires the car for the just married couple after the church’s ceremonial , then a 1 hour street’s & neighborhood’s photography session , couple public proudly exhibition at a gigantic “luxury” car until it arrival to the Fiesta’s saloon . So Chrysler used to sell max 5 vehicles per year , that’s more than enough < not because people wouldn't love to buy more Royal Monacos but because churches' marriage cerimonies from every religion descended from 5000 per year to only 5 per year . Still can't distinct what's more exotica , whether if seeing a Dodge Royal Monaco down the street whether a couple in marriage's customes
The author provides some excellent observations. Ford styling was simply unattractive from the late 1960s through around 1979 when the Fox Body Mustang came out, along with some other clean designs of the 1980s (the second Granada), and then 1983 with the Thunderbird. Chrysler did have better designs overall throughout the 1970s. For some reason I especially like the fuselage-style 1972 Polara / Monaco, maybe even better than GMs 1972 full-sized models that all seemed to improve beginning in 1973. I saw a ’72 Monaco (in brown no less!) a few years ago, and it had this strange retro resonance in my psyche. Although the replacements for the fuselage models looked good, they were no styling leaders.